Tarrents v. Anderson
Doc. 8
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 06-980 (ADM/AJB)
GUY MARSHALL TARRENTS, Petitioner, v. MARTY ANDERSON, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case has been referred to this Court for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts.1 I. BACKGROUND In April 2003, Petitioner pleaded guilty to bank robbery and firearms charges in a federal criminal case in this District. United States v. Tarrents, Crim. No. 03-27(1)
(DSD/SRN). On or about August 26, 2003, District Court Judge David S. Doty sentenced
Rule 4 provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Although The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases are most directly applicable to habeas petitions filed by state prisoners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, they also may be applied to habeas cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Rule 1(b); Mickelson v. United States, Civil No. 01-1750 (JRT/SRN), (D.Minn. 2002), 2002 WL 31045849 at *2; Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270, n.1, (9th Cir. 1989); Rothstein v. Pavlick, No. 90 C 5558 (N.D.Ill. 1990), 1990 WL 171789 at *3.
1
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 2 of 9
Petitioner to a total of 93 months in federal prison, to be followed by four years of supervised release. Petitioner is currently serving his sentence at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal. United States v. Tarrents, 98 Fed.Appx. 572 (8th Cir. 2004). Thereafter, Petitioner challenged his sentence in a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming that his sentence should be vacated by reason of the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Petitioner's § 2255 motion was denied on the merits by Judge Doty's order dated May 2, 2005. (United States v. Tarrents, Crim. No. 03-27(1) (DSD/SRN), [Docket No. 76].) In the present habeas corpus proceeding, Petitioner is once again claiming that his sentence should be set aside. His claims appear to be based primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Petitioner cannot raise his current claims for relief in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Therefore, the Court will recommend that this action be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. II. DISCUSSION As a general rule, a federal prisoner can maintain a collateral challenge to his conviction or sentence only by filing a motion in the trial court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2984 (2005). The fifth paragraph of § 2255 provides that "[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section [i.e., § 2255], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for 2
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 3 of 9
relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." (Emphasis added.) Thus, "[i]t is well settled a collateral challenge to a federal conviction or sentence must generally be raised in a motion to vacate filed in the sentencing court under § 2255... and not in a habeas petition filed in the court of incarceration... under § 2241." Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003). In effect, a motion brought in the trial court under § 2255 is the exclusive remedy available to a federal prisoner who is asserting a collateral challenge to his conviction or sentence. No court has jurisdiction to hear such a challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (or otherwise), unless the petitioner has affirmatively demonstrated that the remedy provided by § 2255 "`is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of...[his] detention.'" DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321, 323 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See also Von Ludwitz v. Ralston, 716 F.2d 528, 529 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (same). The "inadequate or ineffective remedy" exception is sometimes called the "savings clause," (Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959), because when it applies, it can save a § 2241 habeas petition from being dismissed under the § 2255 exclusive remedy rule. In this case, it is readily apparent that Petitioner is challenging the validity of his federal prison sentence. Therefore, the present petition is barred by § 2255's exclusive remedy rule, (unless the savings clause applies here). In some cases, a § 2241 petition that is barred by the exclusive remedy rule can simply be construed to be a motion brought under § 2255. The matter can then be transferred to the trial court judge so the prisoner's claims can be addressed on the merits there. Here, however, Petitioner is precluded from seeking relief under § 2255, because he has already 3
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 4 of 9
sought such relief once before. Any new request for § 2255 relief that might now come before the trial court would have to be treated as a "second or successive" § 2255 motion, which, under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, ("AEDPA"), could not be entertained by the trial court without the prior approval of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit where Petitioner was convicted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3) and 2255 (final paragraph).2 Without a pre-authorization order from the appropriate circuit court, a trial court cannot
2
According to the final paragraph of 28 U.S.C. § 2255:
"A second or successive motion [under § 2255] must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain ­ (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) provides that: "(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. (B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals. (C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection. (D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the authorization to file a second or successive application not later than 30 days after the filing of the motion. (E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari. 4
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 5 of 9
exercise jurisdiction over a second or successive § 2255 motion. Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Boykin v. United States, No. 99-3369 (8th Cir. 2000), 2000 WL 1610732 (unpublished opinion). Because the instant Petitioner has not obtained a pre-authorization order from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the trial court judge could not entertain a new § 2255 motion at this time. Id. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to treat the present habeas corpus petition as a § 2255 motion and transfer this matter back to the District Court Judge who sentenced Petitioner. It also appears that any § 2255 motion that Petitioner might attempt to bring before the trial court at this time would be time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations applicable to § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255[ ¶ 6 ]. For this additional reason, it would be inappropriate to construe the present petition to be a § 2255 motion, and then transfer it to the trial court. Furthermore, it appears that Petitioner may have deliberately elected to seek relief under the § 2241 habeas corpus statute, based, perhaps, on a belief that the remedy provided by § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality" of his sentence. He apparently thinks that his current petition is exempt from § 2255's exclusive remedy rule under the savings clause, and that he can challenge his sentence in a habeas proceeding, because he is not presently eligible for relief under § 2255. Such reasoning, however, must be rejected. The rule against successive § 2255 motions, and the one-year statute of limitations, would be rendered meaningless if a prisoner who is procedurally barred from bringing a § 2255 motion could simply argue that the remedy provided by that statute has become "inadequate or ineffective," and that he should therefore be allowed to bring his claims in a § 5
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 6 of 9
2241 habeas corpus petition. Congress could not have intended for the rules governing successive § 2255 motions, and the statute of limitations, to be so easily evaded. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that § 2255 will not be viewed as inadequate or ineffective "merely because § 2255 relief has already been denied,... or because petitioner has been denied permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion... or because a second or successive § 2255 motion has been dismissed, ... or because petitioner has allowed the one year statute of limitations and/or grace period to expire." United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). See also Hill, 349 F.3d at 1091 ("in order to establish a remedy is `inadequate or ineffective' under § 2255, there must be more than a procedural barrier to bringing a § 2255 petition"); Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 959 ("§ 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the claim was previously raised in a § 2255 motion and denied, or because a remedy under that section is time-barred"); United States ex rel Perez v. Warden, FMC Rochester, 286 F.3d 1059, 106162 (8th Cir.) (reaffirming that § 2255 is not rendered inadequate or ineffective by operation of the rules limiting successive § 2255 motions), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 869 (2002). "A federal prisoner should be permitted to seek habeas corpus [under § 2241] only if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain earlier judicial correction of a fundamental defect in his conviction or sentence because the law changed after his first 2255 motion." In re: Davenport, 147 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 1998). In other words, "§ 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective," thereby allowing a prisoner to challenge his conviction or sentence in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition, "where a petitioner had any opportunity to present his claim beforehand." Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 963. Applying this rule here, it is clear that Petitioner 6
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 7 of 9
cannot bring his current claims for relief in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition, because he could have raised all of his claims in his direct appeal, or in his § 2255 motion. 3 The remedy provided by § 2255 cannot be viewed as inadequate or ineffective, thereby allowing the "savings clause" to be applied here, simply because Petitioner neglected to raise his current claims in his direct appeal or in his § 2255 motion, or because he is dissatisfied with the previous court rulings on those claims. III. CONCLUSION In sum, the Court finds that: (1) Petitioner's current application for habeas corpus relief challenges the validity of the prison sentence he is currently serving; (2) such challenges can be raised only in a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the remedy provided by that statute is "inadequate or ineffective;" (3) the instant petition cannot be construed as a § 2255 motion, because Petitioner is barred from seeking relief under § 2255 by the rules governing successive petitions and the statute of limitations; and (4) Petitioner's present inability to seek relief under § 2255 does not cause the remedy provided by § 2255 to be "inadequate or ineffective" so as to excuse him from § 2255's exclusive remedy rule. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner's current § 2241 habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained here, and that this action must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court recognizes that Booker had not been decided when Petitioner filed his § 2255 motion, but Booker was decided while that motion was still pending, and Petitioner could have sought leave to amend or supplement his § 2255 claims, to specifically include any Booker-based claim, before Judge Doty decided his § 2255 motion. Furthermore, Judge Doty's order denying the § 2255 motion expressly acknowledged the Booker decision, and expressly indicated that Petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Booker. (See United States v. Tarrents, Crim. No. 03-27(1) (DSD/SRN), Order dated May 2, 2005, [Docket No. 76], at p. 5, n. 3.) 7
3
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 8 of 9
See DeSimone, 805 F.2d at 323-24 (§ 2241 habeas petition challenging prior criminal conviction was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where petitioner had not demonstrated that § 2255 motion was an inadequate or ineffective remedy); Abdullah, 392 F.3d at 964 ("[b]ecause Abdullah did not show that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the district court correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider his claim in a § 2241 petition"). Because Petitioner has failed to state a claim for relief that can properly be raised in his present § 2241 habeas corpus petition, his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ("IFP"), should be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also, Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1074, n. 3 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (IFP application should be denied where habeas petition cannot be entertained). The Court will also recommend that Petitioner's other collateral motions ­ i.e., "Motion for Emergency Hearing for Writ of Habeas Corpus," (Docket No. 5), and "Motion in Support of Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum," (Docket No. 6) ­ be summarily denied, due to lack of jurisdiction. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Docket No. 1), be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; 2. Petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), be DENIED;
8
Case 0:06-cv-00980-ADM-AJB
Document 8
Filed 03/10/2006
Page 9 of 9
3. Petitioner's "Motion for Emergency Hearing for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Docket No. 5), be DENIED; and 4. Petitioner's "Motion in Support of Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum," (Docket No. 6), be DENIED. Dated: March 9, 2006 s/ Arthur J. Boylan ARTHUR J. BOYLAN United States Magistrate Judge Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, any party may object to this Report and Recommendation by filing with the Clerk of Court, and by serving upon all parties, written objections which specifically identify the portions of the Report to which objections are made and the bases for each objection. This Report and Recommendation does not constitute an order or judgment from the District Court and it is therefore not directly appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Written objections must be filed with the Court before March 24, 2006.
9

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.